The Intricacies of Wrongful Conviction and Death Row
The use of capital punishment, more commonly known as the death penalty, continues to stir much controversy worldwide with regard to its moral implications. Capital punishment practices are accepted by many as a fair and equitable punishment for extreme and violent crimes, and most specifically for cases of intentional, willful, and premeditated murder. However, those opposed to it are becoming increasingly vocal about its negative consequences. In recent years, more people are beginning to disagree with the idea of responding to murder with murder. While the majority are in consensus that criminals with such gruesome intent should not receive any mercy in regards to a punishment for their actions, more individuals need to comprehend the severity of sentencing an individual to death. The death penalty has been widely believed to be a method to deter violent criminals due to fear of their own life as there is no harsher punishment than death itself, except there is no statistical evidence that this method has been effective. Scientists agree that capital punishment has no deterrent effect and does not reduce murder cases. In fact, states without the death penalty continually record fewer murders than those states who maintain capital punishment. Nevertheless, the death penalty still exists in a number of countries worldwide, including the United States of America.
In 1972, the United States’ Supreme Court deemed the death penalty to be unconstitutional as it violated numerous amendments. In spite of that, more than half of the states in the U.S. still continue to use capital punishment today. Moreover, approximately 30% of countries worldwide also still continue to utilize the death penalty. History tells us that putting an end to the death penalty is improbable as a significant number of countries worldwide continue to feel strongly that this type of revenge is justified. Realistically speaking, abolishing the death penalty would reduce the number of incarcerated prisoners; as a result, these prisoners would require less funding by the state and taxpayers as opposed to prisoners receiving life sentences. The death penalty also eliminates the possibility of escape and is comforting to the family of the victim, shielding them from revictimization However, minimal attention is given to the more critical issue with the death penalty — several individuals sentenced to death in the past were later proven to be innocent.
Just Mercy (2019) is a film based on the true story of a black man named Walter McMillian, who spent six years on death row for a crime he did not commit. Without the help of Bryan Stevenson, a black Harvard Law School graduate who grew up learning about racial hardships, McMillian would have inevitably suffered the consequences of another criminal. The film Just Mercy illustrates the intricacies of the death penalty and how it perpetuates racial bias, poor defensive lawyering, underrepresentation due to wealth, false confessions, and insufficient evidence in cases. Ultimately, the film justly argues that under no circumstances should any innocent life be taken by our judicial system due to human error or unequal opportunity for justice.
When rethinking laws and regulations regarding the death penalty, it is crucial to consider that there is no room for error — life cannot be returned if there is a mistake or new evidence comes to light. The story of Walter McMillian is one specific case of racial discrimination, insufficient evidence, and false confessions interfering with the judicial system. In Just Mercy, all three of these elements above were critical factors in the inconsiderateness and thoughtlessness of the jury’s decision for the result of McMillian’s case: despite the overwhelming evidence against his involvement in the murder, Walter McMillian’s trial did not even last two days.
Walter McMillian was a 45-year-old father at the time he was charged with the death of an 18-year-old white woman in Monroeville, Alabama in 1988. Understandably, the murder frightened the community and the terror multiplied when authorities were not able to distinguish any suspects for the case. During that time period in the South, there were longstanding cultural fears of black male aggression and equally longstanding beliefs in the sanctity of white women. Moreover, calming the fears of the white community carried far more importance to the police than wrongfully accusing an innocent black man. McMillian’s conviction was solely based on racial profiling as the main real evidence for this case was that he fit the community’s desired character description.
Although some major legal strides have been made against racial discrimination, these cultural issues are ever-present. There is still a great risk today that discrimination will play a part in death penalty convictions. The American South was an area historically tolerant of racism; despite the 17 witnesses able to attest to his whereabouts at the time of the crime, as he was at a church fish fry event 11 miles away from the crime scene, McMillian’s conviction was predictable before his trial. Astonishingly, McMillian was held on death row for 15 months prior to his trial. Notwithstanding, the odds were not in his favor with a jury of 11 white men and one black man. McMillian had no previous criminal history and the sole motivation for authorities connecting him to the case was due to his previous affair with a white woman.
The police were aware that they could not close the case without irrefutable evidence and the film exquisitely illustrates how the police acquired this evidence from Ralph Bernard Myers, a white criminal already facing the death penalty, who had an incentive to lie.
In order to corroborate McMillian’s guilt, the authorities presented Mr. Myers an offer he could not refuse: providing him the option to testify against McMillian for a lessened sentence of 30 years in prison in exchange for his death sentence. While Myers originally insisted that he did not have any information regarding McMillian’s case, Myers reported that the police repeatedly coerced him into testifying against McMillian. Ralph Bernard Myers's testimony was the sole piece of concrete evidence used to convict McMillian. Without Stevenson’s persistence in this case, predominantly in discovering old abandoned tapes of Myers originally refuting his knowledge of McMillian’s involvement, the authorities would have gotten away with this disgusting, monstrous behavior.
Just Mercy does not attempt to make a strong case for the elimination of capital punishment. Instead, the director strives to educate viewers through simply sharing the extraordinarily emotional story of McMillian, as well as briefly touching on other stories of the inmates also on death row that McMillian befriends while imprisoned. The film's obvious goal is to make viewers sympathize with the inmates’ stories, in order to influence their views on the topic of capital punishment without forcing them into feeling a certain way. While the director does not impose his beliefs on the viewers, they are undoubtedly triggered by emotional attachments to the characters. A powerful example is when Herbert Richardson, one of the inmates Stevenson fights for, reaches his execution date.
The film never mentions that within the past 50 years in the United States, an additional 166 death-row prisoners have been found innocent and exonerated of all charges. Out of these exonerated, 63% were American minorities such as African-Americans or Latinos. While a large number of cases were overturned due to insufficient evidence, the majority of these exonerations were falsely accused minorities that had suffered for years due to reasons they had no control over. We cannot change the past but our goal should be to change the future. While it is difficult to decipher the number of convictions that are truly valid, statistics do show that the race of the victim plays a role in determining if the defendant will receive capital punishment. With all these elements unintentionally contributing to the deciding factors of the punishments, it does not seem just to continue with this corrupt system. While the film does carry a strong sense of urgency about this issue, we have the responsibility to sustain the urgency by bringing forth more stories of justice and redemption in order to stimulate awareness and change.
Once Walter McMillian was freed of his charges, he testified to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee:
“I am deeply troubled by the way the criminal system treated me and the difficulty I had in proving my innocence. I believe there are other people under sentence of death who like me are not guilty. When you are poor and under sentence of death you worry about a lot of things. One of the biggest worries is whether you’ll get the kind of legal assistance you need to save you from execution.”
“Justice is forever shattered when we kill an innocent man.”
-Walter McMillian
Just Mercy was successful in opening my eyes to the flaws of the legal system, which clearly has the propensity to be corrupt. Evidently, there is a severe divide between the injustice for minorities and majorities in the United States. As the minorities in the United States do not always receive equal opportunities, and in fact often receive inferior treatment from others, it is critical that those who are not susceptible to the mistreatment are made aware that it is present. In Just Mercy, the lawyer fighting for inmates on death row is a minority himself — he is fully aware of the hardships present because he grew up in a family that faced the same racial discrimination in the past. Once the awareness grows past minorities, we will impose fairness to all.
